Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece


Klimtology

Recommended Posts

A great interview on the irrationality of atheism.

'This is the first in a series of interviews about religion that I will conduct for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Alvin Plantinga, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, a former president of both the Society of Christian Philosophers and the American Philosophical Association, and the author, most recently, of “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.”'

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog%20Post&contentCollection=Opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It is almost comical how many irrational arguments Alvin Plantinga makes in trying to label atheists as "irrational," but it is really just sad. Another embarrassment for the religious community within intellectual circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

:thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

It's literally the only subject where anyone pays attention to the distinction.

I can't prove that the New York Knicks aren't going to be NBA champions this year. After all, a plague could come and wipe out every other team in the NBA. But nobody's agnostic about their chances. I'm comfortable being an Ameloist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

http://i.imgur.com/P5IcT.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

I'm not disagreeing with you... my point was more toward DiStefano. There is nothing more tiresome and utterly pointless than pointing out a perceived distinction between atheism and agnosticism. They answer separate questions and are not mutually exclusive.

Ramsay's NBA example shows how silly it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

Flying Spaghetti Monster agrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

:goodposting:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Theism is a belief. Put an "a" in front of it, you get a lack of belief.

It is a position within a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of it.

You can try to complicate it all you want, it will always come back to this. :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asserting there are no gods, is only a little more reasonable than asserting there are. Neither is a logical argument in my mind, as it is neither provable nor disprovable.

Which brings us back to the theism discussion... belief <--- to ---> lack of belief. Theism and athiesm.. two points on the spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Theism is a belief. Put an "a" in front of it, you get a lack of belief.

It is a position within a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of it.

You can try to complicate it all you want, it will always come back to this. :shrug:

Some atheists (not all) do actually assert that there is no God.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Theism is a belief. Put an "a" in front of it, you get a lack of belief.

It is a position within a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of it.

You can try to complicate it all you want, it will always come back to this. :shrug:

Yet there it is - Positive Atheism - whose very definition is the assertion that there are no deities. All I'm rebutting is YOUR assertion that atheism doesn't make that assertion, but clearly it does in one of it's forms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Theism is a belief. Put an "a" in front of it, you get a lack of belief.

It is a position within a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of it.

You can try to complicate it all you want, it will always come back to this. :shrug:

Yet there it is - Positive Atheism - whose very definition is the assertion that there are no deities. All I'm rebutting is YOUR assertion that atheism doesn't make that assertion, but clearly it does in one of it's forms.

Again, a poor definition when you break down the root of the word. Theism is the belief in a god. Try it with me, what happens when you put the prefix "a" in front of this word?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Theism is a belief. Put an "a" in front of it, you get a lack of belief.

It is a position within a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of it.

You can try to complicate it all you want, it will always come back to this. :shrug:

Yet there it is - Positive Atheism - whose very definition is the assertion that there are no deities. All I'm rebutting is YOUR assertion that atheism doesn't make that assertion, but clearly it does in one of it's forms.

Again, a poor definition when you break down the root of the word. Theism is the belief in a god. Try it with me, what happens when you put the prefix "a" in front of this word?

I think you're just playing word games here because - regardless of what you're saying - "Positive Atheism" clearly defines itself as the assertion there are no Gods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

You keep doing this.

Atheism asserts no such thing.

I wish there was some way to stop this mindless semantics game of atheism/agnosticism. It would be great if, just once, atheism could be brought up without someone playing labeling games, taking the argument absolutely nowhere.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism makes said assertion. No semantics necessary.

yeah, I know this is wikipedia, but it clearly states it in the first sentence:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Isn't the position that "there are no deities" pretty much an assertion?

Hmmm...maybe it depends on which form you follow?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none

Theism is a belief. Put an "a" in front of it, you get a lack of belief.

It is a position within a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of it.

You can try to complicate it all you want, it will always come back to this. :shrug:

Yet there it is - Positive Atheism - whose very definition is the assertion that there are no deities. All I'm rebutting is YOUR assertion that atheism doesn't make that assertion, but clearly it does in one of it's forms.

Again, a poor definition when you break down the root of the word. Theism is the belief in a god. Try it with me, what happens when you put the prefix "a" in front of this word?

Wait, you really think that's the etymology of the word atheism? I'm sorry, but no.
In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[117]

The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[118] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[119] and again in 1571.[120] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[121] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[122] and appears in English about 1587.[123] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[124][125] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[126] theist in 1662,[127] deism in 1675,[128] and theism in 1678.[129] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.

Atheism is not 'non theism.' It's 'non theos' or not a God. Atheism as a term actually PREDATES the term theism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let you chase your tail around that all you want.

How about we move forward by agreeing nobody here that you would label as an "atheist" makes such a claim (assertion).

Sounds good to me, but I'm just going off what "positive atheism" is defining itself as. I'm not making it up on my own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that we've jumped straight to the idiotic semantic arguments around atheism/agnosticism is testament to just how ###### that article is.

You're kidding, but this stupid #### happens in every thread about atheism. It's incredibly pointless and never takes the argument forward. But this is an internet message board, so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

completelydisagree. It's a default position. If I told you an invisible pink leprechaun lived under your bed, grants wishes if you catch him, and poops gold bricks, your default reaction would be disbelief, not "well I can't disprove that so I don't really know".
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

To summarize, the philosophical belief for which Plantinga is most well-known posits that, "It is rationally acceptable to believe in the existence of God without evidence, proof, or argument, i.e., because Belief in God can be 'properly basic.'"

That is the underlying principle through which Plantinga's sense of "rationality" operates when he derides atheists as "irrational."

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

To summarize, the philosophical belief for which Plantinga is most well-known posits that, "It is rationally acceptable to believe in the existence of God without evidence, proof, or argument, i.e., because Belief in God can be 'properly basic.'"

That is the underlying principle through which Plantinga's sense of "rationality" operates when he derides atheists as "irrational."

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

:shrug: I'm not defending his argument that belief in God is properly basic. I haven't read his arguments in a while (I think I have his book somewhere).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

Your labels are your labels, I'll admit that anytime. I also took fault for taking this bait in the first place, I know better. :thumbup:

By your definition of the label, I'm not an atheist. Probably not what you were hoping for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

Your labels are your labels, I'll admit that anytime. I also took fault for taking this bait in the first place, I know better. :thumbup:

By your definition of the label, I'm not an atheist. Probably not what you were hoping for.

I linked for you proof that your semantic game was incorrect. I'm not labeling you and don't care how you label yourself.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

Your labels are your labels, I'll admit that anytime. I also took fault for taking this bait in the first place, I know better. :thumbup:

By your definition of the label, I'm not an atheist. Probably not what you were hoping for.

I linked for you proof that your semantic game was incorrect. I'm not labeling you and don't care how you label yourself.

Thank you for recapping the bad bait I took.

The hook is out, catch someone else. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.

To summarize, the philosophical belief for which Plantinga is most well-known posits that, "It is rationally acceptable to believe in the existence of God without evidence, proof, or argument, i.e., because Belief in God can be 'properly basic.'"

That is the underlying principle through which Plantinga's sense of "rationality" operates when he derides atheists as "irrational."

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

:shrug: I'm not defending his argument that belief in God is properly basic. I haven't read his arguments in a while (I think I have his book somewhere).
I wasn't attacking you, just Plantinga's patently absurd and intellectually defunct logic that forms the foundation for his entire belief system. Plantinga's suggestion that it is rational to believe in God in the absence of any evidence or argument because such a belief is "properly basic" -- in other words, a belief that is self-evident to one's self or evident to the senses -- is nothing more than a self-serving characterization used to try to escape the traditional confines of logic and reason. It is simply one of the most irrational and childish arguments that I've ever seen advanced by someone posing as an academic scholar.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...